Political Conservatism
(go
to original)
Medical science
is still seeking a cure
By Bryan Zepp Jamieson 08/16/03
Well, we always knew there was something wrong
with them.
A study, funded jointly by the National Science
Foundation (NSF), and National Institute of Mental Health at the National
Institute of Health (NIH) examined a mindset that the authors were polite enough
to refer to as political conservatism. That was something of a euphemism. What
they were really studying were the right wing whacks who took over the GOP and
threaten to turn America into a third-rate fourth Reich. The paper, titled
"Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" has raised a
predictable storm among right wingers, most of whom are yowling and spitting in
rage and frustration and throwing their feces, furious that anyone would imply
they were emotionally unstable.
A second paper by the same researchers, entitled
"Exceptions That Prove the Rule—Using a Theory of Motivated Social
Cognition to Account for Ideological Incongruities and Political Anomalies:
Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003)" is being printed in the APA’s
peer-reviewed Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 383—393
According to the authors:
"…[W]e consider evidence for and against
the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1)
mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and
intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased
openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order
and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3)
fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss
prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic
deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system. We have
argued that these motives are in fact related to one another psychologically,
and our motivated social—cognitive perspective helps to integrate them. We now
offer an integrative, meta-analytic
review of research on epistemic, existential, and
ideological bases of conservatism."
—Pg. 352; John T. Jost of Stanford University's
Graduate School of Business; Jack Glaser of University of California, Berkeley;
Arie W. Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park; Frank J.
Sulloway of University of California, Berkeley.
Generally speaking, they find for the evidence.
Hope I didn’t spoil the plot for you.
Right wingers proved the researchers right by
promptly losing their minds and screaming for the hides of the perpetrators.
Right wing radio hosts howled and gibbered that an investigation should be made
immediately into the funding these researchers get, and they were accused, in no
particular order, and according to no rhyme or reason, of being anti-American
and anti-Christian and probably for gay rights and gun control.
The researchers, sensing that this paper might
cause a slight discomfort among the more sensitive of our conservative brethren
(Really. They went up like rabid baboons with bottle rockets stuffed up their
asses!) went to great lengths to reassure one and all that they weren’t
calling the right wingers a bunch of psychotic, destructive nuts. Obviously,
they weren’t studying the right wingers we see most often on the Internet.
The authors wrote, "Our first assumption,
too, is that conservative ideologies – like virtually all other belief systems
– are adopted in part because they satisfy some psychological needs. This does
not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are
necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."
OK, Forget Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson for a
minute. There are conservatives who aren’t vicious amoral anti-social whacks.
In real life, I know some. I even have conservative friends, although I plan to
warn my daughters about them.
But what the researchers were looking at were the
group that I’ve been referring to for years as "secular
fundamentalists." The political variant of these critters tends to be
reactionary, paranoid, authoritarian, intolerant, contemptuous of rules that
don’t suit them and overbearing in their observance on behalf of others of
rules that do suit them. While there are left wing examples (David Horowitz was
a good example in his time) they generally gravitate toward fascism and call it
conservatism, even though it’s usually better described as radical
reactionaryism.
The authors define the two core principles of
conservatism as resistance to change, and acceptance of social inequality.
Conservatives, they argue, cling tightly to a status quo, real or imagined, and
regard society as hierarchical. Unsurprisingly, they tend to believe they have
inherited and/or merited preferential positions in this hierarchy.
The authors address what they call the
"conservative paradox" of radical reactionaryism (e.g, Hitler,
Mussolini or Pinochet) by pointing out that their calls for extreme inequality
in the social order were juxtaposed with promises to lead the country back to an
ideal past, one in which "traditional values and morality" prevailed.
It occurs to me a good catchphrase for the mawkish and hollow babble that
usually accompanies this fraud is "morning in America." Our
present-day radical reactionaries continuously harken back to a traditional
America that never existed, one where everyone was a god fearing generic
protestant, people with accents lived in the poor part of town and never
bothered folks, and women and blacks knew their place.
This matches what I consider a hallmark of the
fundamentalist mindset: the ability to completely invert a philosophy to suit
personal needs. In religion, for example, you have Christianity and Islam,
religions that both place high premiums on respect for one’s fellow humans,
peace, and personal integrity. Yet fundamentalists are frequently the most
violent, dishonest and intolerant people around, and use their religion to
completely rationalize this abhorrent behavior. In conservatism you see people
who champion the Bill of Rights, unobtrusive government, and a laissez faire
approach to industry cheering loudly for the Patriot Act and the tariffs Putsch
has placed on steel and timber. This emotional and intellectual dichotomy is how
conservatives can condemn dishonest and immoral behavior on Clinton’s part
while phlegmatically accepting that Putsch lied his way into a war that does not
benefit America while declaring that he is opposed to "nation
building." It’s how Republicans can damn Democrats as being fiscally
irresponsible even while they ignore Putsch’s disastrous fiscal policies that
are driving the nation to new and insane levels of debt. One need only watch
conservatives in California vilify Grey Davis for a $38 billion deficit that he
didn’t cause while ignoring Putsch’s $600 billion deficit, much of which was
fueled by his reckless tax cuts.
One of the more interesting references in the
paper is "The Theory of RWA," in which the authors consider the
Authoritarian Personality. They state, "harsh parenting styles brought on
by economic hardship led entire generations to repress hostility toward
authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated deference and
idealization of authority and tendencies to blame society scapegoats and punish
deviants."
Angry, repressed, passive-aggressive with a
desire to punish those who don’t conform.
Yup, that’s our boys. It could be the platform
of the GOP.
For those who are interested, the papers are
available at the APA website, and a Google search for "Political
Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" and "Exceptions That Prove
the Rule—Using a Theory of Motivated Social Cognition to Account for
Ideological Incongruities and Political Anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas
(2003)" (Oh, for Pete’s Sake: use cut and paste: highlight, control-C and
then control-V into the Google search box) will turn up the PDFs in good order.
While the papers are highly academic, the psychobabble remains at reasonable
levels, and the papers are quite readable.
Right wingers hate them, of course. But it’s
hard to see why. The paper won’t stop people from growing up to be right
wingers. Many people can no more choose to be conservative than they can choose
to be gay.
For those of you utterly challenged by cut and paste:
[Google
search: Political
Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition ]
DISCLAIMER:
The editors at the Deprogrammer apologize for any
offense that may have be taken because of the
stories,
the
views and opinions you read, and the links you may follow
from the
deprogrammer. These
opinions are
entirely the responsibility of the person who has expressed them. They are in no
way meant to be interpreted as opinions that members of Quad Cities People for
Peace embrace as a group,
or that we necessarily embrace here at The Deprogrammer.
Everyone has an opinion. Our
goal is to give you as much un-spun truth as possible so that you may form
your own opinions through constant questioning of controversial subjects.
To that end, we will endeavor
to present as many sides of a story as possible while at the same time
bringing to your attention our countries most critical minds and their
opinions on the most important (and controversial) issues we as a society are
facing today.
David
"Crow" VanThournout
Editor,
www.thedeprogrammer.com
This
website is solar powered by;
|
